Rashi explains that Moshe Rabbeinu was telling the people that anointing Aharon and preparing him to serve as Kohen Gadol was not his own “idea.” He was following the instruction of the Almighty. Moshe was concerned that the people might suspect that he was acting either on his own behalf or on the behalf of his brother Aharon. He mitigated their concerns. While this may have “calmed” the people, Chazal relate that Moshe was still worried that he might personally benefit from the honor of investing Aharon into the Priesthood. This would constitute me’ilah, unlawfully benefiting from this holy endeavor….
Back to Home -> Tzav ->
Rashi explains that Moshe Rabbeinu was telling the people that anointing Aharon and preparing him to serve as Kohen Gadol was not his own “idea.” He was following the instruction of the Almighty. Moshe was concerned that the people might suspect that he was acting either on his own behalf or on the behalf of his brother Aharon. He mitigated their concerns. While this may have “calmed” the people, Chazal relate that Moshe was still worried that he might personally benefit from the honor of investing Aharon into the Priesthood. This would constitute me’ilah, unlawfully benefiting from this holy endeavor….
Rashi explains that Moshe Rabbeinu was telling the people that anointing Aharon and preparing him to serve as Kohen Gadol was not his own “idea.” He was following the instruction of the Almighty. Moshe was concerned that the people might suspect that he was acting either on his own behalf or on the behalf of his brother Aharon. He mitigated their concerns. While this may have “calmed” the people, Chazal relate that Moshe was still worried that he might personally benefit from the honor of investing Aharon into the Priesthood. This would constitute me’ilah, unlawfully benefiting from this holy endeavor….
Throughout the parsha, we note how Moshe Rabbeinu acted in accordance with Hashem’s command – es Moshe; “to Moshe” (i.e., 39:1,5,7,21,26; 40:19,21,23,25,27). Should it not have said oso; “to him,” rather than “to Moshe” as the Torah expresses here? Are they not one and the same? Horav Elchanan Wasserman, z.l., was wont to say that Moshe did not attribute any significance to himself in regard to his position as Moshe, the quintessential leader of the Jewish People. There was Moshe – the man, and Moshe – the leader: two different people. It is as if Moshe, the man, was standing…
Throughout the parsha, we note how Moshe Rabbeinu acted in accordance with Hashem’s command – es Moshe; “to Moshe” (i.e., 39:1,5,7,21,26; 40:19,21,23,25,27). Should it not have said oso; “to him,” rather than “to Moshe” as the Torah expresses here? Are they not one and the same? Horav Elchanan Wasserman, z.l., was wont to say that Moshe did not attribute any significance to himself in regard to his position as Moshe, the quintessential leader of the Jewish People. There was Moshe – the man, and Moshe – the leader: two different people. It is as if Moshe, the man, was standing…
Throughout the parsha, we note how Moshe Rabbeinu acted in accordance with Hashem’s command – es Moshe; “to Moshe” (i.e., 39:1,5,7,21,26; 40:19,21,23,25,27). Should it not have said oso; “to him,” rather than “to Moshe” as the Torah expresses here? Are they not one and the same? Horav Elchanan Wasserman, z.l., was wont to say that Moshe did not attribute any significance to himself in regard to his position as Moshe, the quintessential leader of the Jewish People. There was Moshe – the man, and Moshe – the leader: two different people. It is as if Moshe, the man, was standing…
Throughout the parsha, we note how Moshe Rabbeinu acted in accordance with Hashem’s command – es Moshe; “to Moshe” (i.e., 39:1,5,7,21,26; 40:19,21,23,25,27). Should it not have said oso; “to him,” rather than “to Moshe” as the Torah expresses here? Are they not one and the same? Horav Elchanan Wasserman, z.l., was wont to say that Moshe did not attribute any significance to himself in regard to his position as Moshe, the quintessential leader of the Jewish People. There was Moshe – the man, and Moshe – the leader: two different people. It is as if Moshe, the man, was standing…
Throughout the parsha, we note how Moshe Rabbeinu acted in accordance with Hashem’s command – es Moshe; “to Moshe” (i.e., 39:1,5,7,21,26; 40:19,21,23,25,27). Should it not have said oso; “to him,” rather than “to Moshe” as the Torah expresses here? Are they not one and the same? Horav Elchanan Wasserman, z.l., was wont to say that Moshe did not attribute any significance to himself in regard to his position as Moshe, the quintessential leader of the Jewish People. There was Moshe – the man, and Moshe – the leader: two different people. It is as if Moshe, the man, was standing…
Throughout the parsha, we note how Moshe Rabbeinu acted in accordance with Hashem’s command – es Moshe; “to Moshe” (i.e., 39:1,5,7,21,26; 40:19,21,23,25,27). Should it not have said oso; “to him,” rather than “to Moshe” as the Torah expresses here? Are they not one and the same? Horav Elchanan Wasserman, z.l., was wont to say that Moshe did not attribute any significance to himself in regard to his position as Moshe, the quintessential leader of the Jewish People. There was Moshe – the man, and Moshe – the leader: two different people. It is as if Moshe, the man, was standing…
Throughout the parsha, we note how Moshe Rabbeinu acted in accordance with Hashem’s command – es Moshe; “to Moshe” (i.e., 39:1,5,7,21,26; 40:19,21,23,25,27). Should it not have said oso; “to him,” rather than “to Moshe” as the Torah expresses here? Are they not one and the same? Horav Elchanan Wasserman, z.l., was wont to say that Moshe did not attribute any significance to himself in regard to his position as Moshe, the quintessential leader of the Jewish People. There was Moshe – the man, and Moshe – the leader: two different people. It is as if Moshe, the man, was standing…
